About your Search

20130223
20130223
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
they considered draconian cuts, harry reid and mitch mcconnell said there's a select committee that will spread the cuts all over, you know, over evenly, and that didn't happen, bottom line is, listen, this has been up for a year, and i, and others said, let's get to it, get to it, and they did everything but this. they are on vacation now. they should have come back last week if it's that important. it doesn't get down. i hope i'm wrong, but people are depending on a type of certainty and stability. lou: interesting difference of view in the republican party. speaker boehner in his op-ed this week acknowledges that there would be significant disruptions as a result of sequester going into effect, yet, most of the republican parties say this is what we need, see spending cuts, need to take if on even if it's across the board and arbitrary. there is a real division right now working the republican party apparently; is that right? >> i have not heard so much let's just make the cuts and about it. i'm in the pentagon. i'll serve next week again, and i'm working in the national guard bureau, and th
's in charge and harry reid in charge of the senate. you'd thought we're in charge of everything, apparently. we're not. the president needs to show adership. the house already sent forth proposals, sitting on harry reid's desk, he's done absolutely nothing to bring this to a head. he'll put a bill up with a great title, went be what we want and force you to do it, and, by the way, blame the republicans when it doesn't happen, and then they get to it after, obviously, the march 1 #st deadline. lou: military pay will not be affected by sequester. there's the prospect of possible rolling furloughs, one day a week, several effects that civilian employees, a great number of them in the rollg fiduciary row situation, if it does, in fact, occur. the idea of a sequester turns out to have been -- it seems to me, a monumental misjudgment on the part of both parties and the president, and i can't believe we are sitting here march 1st, and neither the republica or the leadership says this is a stupid idea, and the only people with the power to correct a massively ignorant device we created, and the rep
this as the four horsemen of the apocalypse coming is liquidation. >> does your reporting suggest that harry reid has in fact explicitly rejected as a senate leader, a request by the republicans to add more flexibility to the cuts? >> well, we don't know that in particular, but what we do know is that the white house, they had an official down in front of the senate he recently and they were asked about giving this, being given this flexibility provision and they ultimately came back and said, we would reject any efforts to actually lessen the pain of this sequester. and so, the president here is getting himself into a situation where he's warning about all of these doom and gloom. the republicans are giving him a way out of this and they're increasingly looking to be rejecting that just so that they can continue to bring down the hammer. >> and the president, dan, is insisting not just on other spending cuts, alternatives, or even weakening the cuts, he's saying, look, i want a tax increase, too. >> what is that all about? i mean, we just had a huge tax increase, that is already, according to th
democrats on this issue, harry reid, senator lahey, talking pretty dismissively about the assault weapons ban. gwen: to weapon ban of any kind. >> right. although the magazine restrictions, they still appear to be on the table. the background check measure is astro nomically popular with the government, something like 90% of the people supported it including n.r.a. members. it seems to be a bit of a clever tactic to give some moderate politicians a way to try angulate on this issue so they can say i'm not for the assault weapons ban. that's extreme but i do support this lesser measure even though the irony that something like expanding background checks has the potential to affect a much broader potential policy impact in terms of the number of gun crimes. >> you said a number of n.r.a. members are in favor of the background checks. we haven't heard the n.r.a. say they're in favor of it. are they backing off on the background check issue? >> at least in public, they have not backed off at all. this is a bit of a flip flop for them. back in 1999 the last time this issue was debated, the n.
leadership team. we met with harry reid and his leadership team. our message was we think it is very important that governors have a seat of the table -- at the table. we are partners. we wanted to make sure there were a few principles we could lay out. one is to the extent money is taken off of federal spending but he shifted to state spending, that is not accomplished much for our constituents. my view is that that they understood. they have reached out to us. we are pleased with the outrage. the main bipartisan message to us is that governors should continue to have a seat at the table. we know cuts are coming. we do not want to suffer disproportionately. we want input. >> does sequestration protect the state's more than any alternatives -- states any more than other alternatives? >> look. if you take a look at its and when you say states, it is important that we can talk about the impact. you're talking about the impact on the people we serve. the state of vehicles on of service. it covers everything from substance abuse treatment to head start to work force training. one of the
with senate majority leader harry reid. >> there's a lack of willingness to compromise on the hill and nothing has to happen until it absolutely has to happen. >> the politicking the new normal for a democratic system this is bad. we hope the legislators will be able to put the politics aside sit at the table and come to some agreement. >> they have until march 1st to reach the agreement. the president told reporters hope springs eternal. in washington nicole killian wbal-tv 11 news. >> if marmarch 1st comes and goy are preparing a cut back plan that would drastically reduce the number of air traffic controllers on the job nationwide. 5 airport towers would shut down in easton, frederick, hagarstown and salisbury. it would eliminate dozens of overnight shifts in the faa's 40,000 employees starting in april. >> it is 33 degrees. help for patients in the late stages of breast cancer. we will have the latest drug. >> they haven't gone the way of twinkies. coming up why the baltimore are in short supply around town. >> first, look outside john collins has your 11 insta weather plus forecast next.
harry reid controls the senate. he shoots down. i don't know what to be terrified of more. we have global warming, assault weapons and sequester cuts. everything, everything we're supposed to be terrified and screaming and we're going to go blind if we don't pass this or quite it. this president, this is his idea. he said november 21st, 2011, i will veto any attempt to reduce these cuts. they need to own this and republicans should go out there and say, you know what? we think it's great. we love that the president is finally getting serious about spending. >> we're not getting serious and rush made the point and dana, you said the point, i made the point, we're' spending more money this year than last year. you would think listening to obama-- only in washington when you spend more money year to year is that doom and gloom and a cut. >> sean, was this when bush-- when bush-- >> i don't want to hear about bush, bush is out of office five years and get over it. >> i don't remember this outrage when he was outspending the previous seven presidents. >> sean: he never-- excuse me, the-
it to harry reid. 2:30 on july 27, 2011. is the president guilty of not letting the facts get in the way of a good talking point against the republicans? >> well, again, i know in that particular instance, trying to resolve a crisis on whether to raise the debt ceiling and default our debt, he suggested that as an alternative. the republican has it in the cut, cap and balance plan months before that and remember in the house anyway. 170-something republicans provided more votes for the sequester idea than democrats did. i voted against it. knew it was a bad idea. but i think both sides were equally culpable in doing something that was absolutely nonsensical and we should do now is just admit what we did was silly. >> i would like you to listen to your democratic colleague, debbie wasserman schultz on our air yesterday. >> do republicans consider the sequester leverage. the looming shutdown leverage so they can get the spending cuts they want and protect the tax breaks they have been trying to protect for the wealthiest americans. >> do the democrats and president not also consider this l
with the sequester idea. in fact he has the exact time and date when they first pitched it to senator harry reid, july 27th, 2011. what's your read on that? >> very detailed reporting by bob woodward there. it's an interesting take. certainly the republicans have jumped on. it's been a debate over the last few weeks about who -- actual lit last few months about whose idea this was. you have jack lew, the former chief of staff to the president, up for treasury secretary who said it at a hearing. this was a republican idea. you see the president has sort of hinted at that, too. more recently jay carney at the white house has acknowledged this isn't a white house idea. the republicans are making a big issue of that. as much as the white house is fanning the flames of concern now, sounding the alarms this week it was their idea. they're saying the president needs to come and meet us and sort of acknowledge we gave a little bit on the fiscal cliff on taxes and not going to do it this time. that's the strategy the republicans are using to pin it on the white house. >> joann, they're really blaming the
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)